I just have a very hard time believing that, like you said, the majority of the use case is anything other than piracy.

I mean almost every emulation software somewhere says that you should only emulate games you own, but how many of us actually still own our NES or gamecube games that we may have downloaded. But it's easier to justify given that stuff not being easily accessible anymore, we don't even have a proper eshop for emulation on the Switch.

Even if this is true, torrent clients are predominantly used for piracy too and they don't get sued. Neither are explicitly designed to facilitate it.

Can anyone explain why Yuzu's case is different?

One is an open protocol, and one is proprietary technology. AWS even at one point supported the protocol.

I don't know if it's still a thing but it wasn't terribly uncommon to find Linux distros and other legitimate things shared through that protocol.

Here we are talking about proprietary technology by Nintendo. On a system that they are currently selling and making money on.

Given how much money they were bring in on patrion, it isn't much different than if they tried to make a physical knock off switch that could run switch games.

Over in computer land we would call that "IBM PC Compatible".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_Station

x86 is also proprietary technology that Intel is currently making money on. Should Intel be able to sue AMD out of existence?

NVIDIA's GPU specs are proprietary technology that NVIDIA is currently making money on. Should NVIDIA be able to shut down Nouveau?

Flash is proprietary technology that Adobe still sells under the name Adobe Animate. Should Adobe be able to shut down Ruffle?

AMD has a perpetual license from Intel to use the technology.

Nouveau is different, you are still buying Nvidia cards just running an open source driver. Nvidia doesn't make money on their drivers, they make money on the graphics cards.

Similar situation to Ruffle, Adobe never charged for the end user to download flash. It was free. Ruffle is an alternative to that. Also it is worth mentioning that flash is all but dead and this really just keeps it breathing.

While both companies probably could make an argument to argue for a take down of both, they have no incentive to do it.

AMD only managed to negotiate that because Intel lost in arbitration [1]. Intel's preferred option was always to eliminate AMD entirely. It's good for us consumers that they didn't succeed in that!

> While both companies probably could make an argument to argue for a take down of both, they have no incentive to do it.

NVIDIA absolutely has an incentive to get rid of Nouveau. Its existence discloses IP (their GPU inner workings) that they would prefer to keep secret.

More examples: JavaScript was proprietary technology at the time. The fact that it was specific to Netscape browsers absolutely benefited Netscape's business model. The existence of Chrome depends on the fact that Netscape had no grounds to go after Microsoft for an independent implementation.

SMB is a proprietary Microsoft technology. '90s Microsoft would definitely have preferred to keep that specific to Windows in order to sell more Windows licenses. It's good for the industry that Microsoft never felt they could go after Samba.

Another fun one: The FBX file format, which Autodesk makes money on through Maya, has a half-hearted attempt at DRM in it to limit it to approved Autodesk licensees. Blender's FBX exporter breaks it with a pass-the-hash attack. Get rid of that and Blender can no longer talk to Unity. Obviously, the entire industry benefits from the fact that Autodesk can't go after Blender for this.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD#IBM_PC_and_the_x86_archite...

OK? regardless of why or how it happened, it happened and it means that AMD is fine. If you knew that I don't know why you even mentioned it in the first place.

> NVIDIA absolutely has an incentive to get rid of Nouveau. Its existence discloses IP (their GPU inner workings) that they would prefer to keep secret.

Any articles to back that up? Seems counter to Nvidia offering support in publishing documents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouveau_(software)#History

> Another fun one: The FBX file format, which Autodesk makes money on through Maya, has a half-hearted attempt at DRM in it to limit it to approved Autodesk licensees. Blender's FBX exporter breaks it with a pass-the-hash attack. Get rid of that and Blender can no longer talk to Unity. Obviously, the entire industry benefits from the fact that Autodesk can't go after Blender for this.

Again would love an article on this. I can't find anything backing up that this ever happened. Not only on Audodesk's website do they mention third party software but they have an SDK for this file format for others to use. While blender does in fact not use that SDK, and the format is proprietary, I can't find anything backing up what you claim.

AMD is only fine because Intel wasn't able to sue them out of existence. If Intel had managed to do in the 90s what Nintendo did to Yuzu just now, there'd be no Ryzen today.

> Seems counter to Nvidia offering support in publishing documents

NVIDIA only started publishing documents because Nouveau's success in reverse engineering meant that it was pointless trying to pretend that the genie could be put back in the bottle. Nintendo undoubtedly knows this too; lawsuits like this in 2024 ultimately aren't rational moves on their part, but big conservative Japanese companies have never been known to be particularly adaptable.

> Again would love an article on this. I can't find anything backing up that this ever happened. Not only on Audodesk's website do they mention third party software but they have an SDK for this file format for others to use. While blender does in fact not use that SDK, and the format is proprietary, I can't find anything backing up what you claim.

I found it myself when I was documenting the FBX file format (which I eventually gave up on because it was too horrifying of a format to motivate continuing) [1]. Blender calls it "CRC rules", but I think it's actually an attempt to lock non-licensees out. The SDK is closed-source, proprietary, and comes with a whole bunch of restrictions in its EULA.

[1]: https://github.com/blender/blender-addons/blob/main/io_scene...

AMD has a license to the x86 architecture, alongside Via (though I'm not sure if they even make x86 chips anymore). I'm sure Intel would love to take back AMD's license, but they're probably too afraid of antitrust actions to try.

Why would that be a problem? As long as they're not actually violating trademarks or patents and making an actual counterfeit product, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to make their own hardware that is compatible with Switch games.

These products already exist for other systems, and they are a good way to allow you to play your existing games on more modern hardware.

Just because it upsets some executive at Nintendo doesn't make it illegal.

Yuzu is designed to play specific software which is quite difficult to acquire by legal means. Very little effort appears to have been spent on improving the UX of the legal process.

(It is true that Yuzu can also play homebrew software. I think the situation would be different if Yuzu was tested exclusively on Homebrew, and only emulated features which homebrew software uses. But then no one would care about Yuzu. Yuzu has tons of game-specific fixes for commercial titles.)

Yuzu can also play games that were backed up by people who legitimately own the game. The legality of that might be questionable in the US, but not everywhere.

So we should all just wait until they stop selling a console before working to emulate it?

Just imagine if they had this attitude when it came to reverse engineering IBM PC's bios.

> But, emulating a current console is not about preservation. It just isn't. You can try to say it is, but no. Maybe, maybe you could argue that you are putting in the work now so it's ready when it's needed. But then be careful about putting it out there.

LOL

Yeah, as much as I am an anti-fan of Nintendo, it sounds like this company was asking to get sued.

No, but it CAN be used as a tool to play legitimate copies of games on different hardware. A few people on this thread have said they do this. I haven't done it yet, but I'll probably dump the Switch games I want to play on my Deck instead of carrying the switch also.

Today's present is tomorrow's past.

The Switch is an outlier in that regard but mostly because the hardware is so different from previous consoles. It could never support the 2 screens required for DS/3DS or some Wii U games, nor is it big enough to fit Wii U disks anyway. But it wouldn't surprise me if the Switch 2 could play Switch 1 games.

Nintendo also typically put entire games on their cartridges, and day 1 patches are for bug fixes only and are optional. If you keep the cartridges and your console, you keep your games perfectly fine. Or you can go out and buy cartridges second hand. And digital downloads will also still function, like my 3DS still has my digital purchases even if the eshop is gone. I just can't purchase new games anymore, for a 12 year old system.

Obviously piracy should be illegal, but I just don’t see any argument against emulation even if it is current.

Of course it's completely bonkers and the result of massive corporations bribing governments to limit our freedom.

As long as I don't sign a contract with an entity I should be able to do anything I want with bytes. Once I enter into an agreement not to share some data I received then I should be punishable - but no shortcuts, sue everyone in court with a due process and lawyer fees.

Copyright and patents are the most retarded and culture damaging thing I've seen in my lifetime

Agreed, bonkers. You didn't 'own the data' when it was a VCR recording a broadcast TV show or movie, but now it's all "but they broke our ROT13-super-crypto, throw the book at 'em".

Now, of course, this depends on the movie having a physical release (which is becoming a bit of a rarity these days), but still, the MPAA has made sure to write ironclad contracts to prohibit watching streamed content the way you want.

Dolphin does require a bit of DRM hacking, but Dolphin (arguably) falls under one of the DCMA exceptions for archival use purposes. This is the second important point: the Dolphin emulates a system which has not been on sale for a decade. It's still possible* to use it for general piracy instead of archival access, but the archival use trumps the piracy concern. (It would be different though if the Dolphin developers started offering Dolphin on a commercial basis.)

But Yuzu is a commercial offering, for a console that is still on sale, and its use requires DRM hacking. So it's got 3 fatal flaws.

The only surprise is that Nintendo let it live as long as it has. You can bet they won't make that mistake again with their next console.

Wouldn't Steam, MSTF store, Epic, etc. all count as DRM? Regardless, it's more of a philosophical argument than a legal argument. If I buy the Switch and the game, I don't see how there could be any argument that I should be considered a criminal for using the data on a PC.

They could, which is why I was careful to point out that you can install an OS on your PS5, on which you can then run (some) games on it without having to circumvent DRM.

If I buy the Switch and the game, I don't see how there could be any argument that I should be considered a criminal for using the data on a PC.

Because U.S. (and EU) law doesn't have any exceptions that would cover that use, since the Switch is still being actively sold on the market today. (And as noted elsewhere, this is a large part of why SNES, N64, and Gamecube emulators haven't been targeted by Nintendo: the machines are no longer sold and so emulation allows for archival use/access to games on those platforms. This is generally a permitted use.)

Of course, piracy deprives other people of their property and/or lives which is not something we should accept. Neither is copyright.

I disagree in the general case. Sure, beware of litigious companies, but it isn't immoral.

In the specific case of Yuzu bringing in cash from the endeavor, yes, I see why Nintendo did what they did.

---

Totally off-topic, but I have never bought a Switch despite liking the idea of all the games on it, because I don't want to pay $600 for a gameboy, 2-4 real controllers and a copy of Mario Party. I can't understand how it or Steam Deck is popular. But that's just me.

It's about the shitty part of DMCA's anti-circumvention.

If you want to see how stupid this law is, look at the number of exemptions given for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...

All Apple will need to claim is that Asahi is bypassing some "client side protection", and Asahi is shut down.

Is Asahi bypassing some client side protection?

If Apple wanted to kill Asahi Linux, they could just remove this functionality from iBoot.

Apple will not remove this functionality, because they would not have added it in the first place if they did not want people to be able to use it.

Overall, that's probably a mostly fine outcome for game preservation, and thinking about it more, it's probably much better for emulation and game preservation long term that Yuzu's devs settled instead of fighting this, as if they had lost and a legal precedent were set, many other emulators might have had to shut down or be hosted in countries where the DMCA doesn't apply. But with no legal precedent set here, emulators for consoles released before the Switch might very well be safe. Time will tell though.

What do you think of piracy in general? When would you consider pirating a PC game would be acceptable?

The reality is that the modern gaming industry is actively hostile to the consumer. Content is locked behind intrusive DRM, store front exclusivity deals, licensing terms that may revoke your access at any point, obnoxious launchers, always online requirements, reliance on servers that may disappear at any moment, insidious subscriptions, microtransactions, and many other schemes ranging from shady to borderline illegal. Hype-driven marketing pushing pre-orders based on lies, followed by empty promises of multi-year roadmaps to get games in a playable state. Yearly releases of rehashed and reskinned content, low-effort and premature "remasters"... The list goes on and on.

Is someone who plays a pirated version of a game they purchased, but can't access anymore, in the wrong? Or how about if they prefer the pirated version because it gives a better experience? Or how about if they're tired of always getting the short end of the stick by playing by the rules? The law says they are, but are they really?

The morality here is not so black and white.

BTW, I agree with you that Yuzu was clearly overstepping the boundaries, and that it's no surprise Nintendo took them out. I just think that Nintendo doesn't necessarily have the moral high ground, and that there's a strong argument in favor of not only emulation, but piracy.